High ping and packet loss in local network
-
Yes, this is my ping from pfsense to another router and your argument seems to be correct, but if i ping from another machine on the same switch i'm obtaining the correct ping value:
ping -c 10 192.168.1.254 PING 192.168.1.254 (192.168.1.254) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 192.168.1.254: icmp_req=1 ttl=64 time=0.943 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.1.254: icmp_req=2 ttl=64 time=0.955 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.1.254: icmp_req=3 ttl=64 time=1.13 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.1.254: icmp_req=4 ttl=64 time=1.01 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.1.254: icmp_req=5 ttl=64 time=0.954 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.1.254: icmp_req=6 ttl=64 time=0.987 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.1.254: icmp_req=7 ttl=64 time=1.11 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.1.254: icmp_req=8 ttl=64 time=0.991 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.1.254: icmp_req=9 ttl=64 time=1.16 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.1.254: icmp_req=10 ttl=64 time=0.939 ms --- 192.168.1.254 ping statistics --- 10 packets transmitted, 10 received, 0% packet loss, time 9013ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.939/1.019/1.165/0.092 msping -c 10 192.168.2.1 PING 192.168.2.1 (192.168.2.1) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 192.168.2.1: icmp_req=1 ttl=64 time=0.029 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.2.1: icmp_req=2 ttl=64 time=0.027 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.2.1: icmp_req=3 ttl=64 time=0.032 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.2.1: icmp_req=4 ttl=64 time=0.033 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.2.1: icmp_req=5 ttl=64 time=0.031 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.2.1: icmp_req=6 ttl=64 time=0.028 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.2.1: icmp_req=7 ttl=64 time=0.032 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.2.1: icmp_req=8 ttl=64 time=0.033 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.2.1: icmp_req=9 ttl=64 time=0.033 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.2.1: icmp_req=10 ttl=64 time=0.032 ms --- 192.168.2.1 ping statistics --- 10 packets transmitted, 10 received, 0% packet loss, time 8998ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.027/0.031/0.033/0.002 msand as you can see the load is not high (i think)
systat -ifstat 1
/0 /1 /2 /3 /4 /5 /6 /7 /8 /9 /10 Load Average || Interface Traffic Peak Total em1_vlan13 in 756.323 KB/s 756.323 KB/s 1.568 GB out 107.138 KB/s 152.320 KB/s 795.237 MB em0_vlan10 in 3.422 KB/s 3.978 KB/s 22.661 MB out 15.332 KB/s 15.489 KB/s 215.933 MB lo0 in 0.231 KB/s 0.529 KB/s 53.768 KB out 0.231 KB/s 0.529 KB/s 53.768 KB em3 in 134.747 KB/s 172.430 KB/s 867.618 MB out 1018.783 KB/s 1.200 MB/s 2.663 GB em2 in 12.804 KB/s 158.291 KB/s 119.529 MB out 9.595 KB/s 29.871 KB/s 115.247 MB em1 in 1004.992 KB/s 1.165 MB/s 2.589 GB out 107.702 KB/s 123.642 KB/s 670.917 MB em0 in 4.167 KB/s 15.851 KB/s 85.611 MB out 8.410 KB/s 13.980 KB/s 154.535 MBhere there is some packet error, but i have the same problem on em1 that haven't packet error,
furthermore if i put this vlan on another interface i haven't packet error in this screen, but the issue of ping still remain.
tho avoid this i've tried to lower the em1_vlan13 related mtu, without any changes
netstat -i -b -n -I em1_vlan13Name Mtu Network Address Ipkts Ierrs Idrop Ibytes Opkts Oerrs Obytes Coll em1_vlan13 1496 <link#11> 00:26:55:e3:3f:67 1751465 0 0 1785886411 1428784 42076 855071125 0 em1_vlan13 1496 fe80::226:55f fe80::226:55ff:fe 0 - - 0 2 - 152 - em1_vlan13 1496 192.168.2.0/2 192.168.2.5 8644 - - 553798 9 - 636 -</link#11>netstat -i -b -n -I em1
Name Mtu Network Address Ipkts Ierrs Idrop Ibytes Opkts Oerrs Obytes Coll em1 1500 <link#2> 00:26:55:e3:3f:67 2883590 0 0 2920905353 2283212 0 720613514 0 em1 1500 fe80::226:55f fe80::226:55ff:fe 0 - - 0 1 - 76 - em1 1500 192.168.1.0/2 192.168.1.130 21341 - - 2327731 20 - 1294 -</link#2>netstat -i -b -n -I em0
Name Mtu Network Address Ipkts Ierrs Idrop Ibytes Opkts Oerrs Obytes Coll em0 1500 <link#1> 00:26:55:e3:3f:66 416717 0 0 92553286 432120 0 165618866 0 em0 1500 fe80::226:55f fe80::226:55ff:fe 0 - - 0 0 - 0 - em0 1500 172.16.30.0/2 172.16.30.5 2228 - - 141767 2210 - 190879 -</link#1>netstat -i -b -n -I em3
Name Mtu Network Address Ipkts Ierrs Idrop Ibytes Opkts Oerrs Obytes Coll em3 1500 <link#4> 00:1d:92:d7:b4:b5 3091414 0 0 942983836 3436801 0 3053508653 0 em3 1500 fe80::21d:92f fe80::21d:92ff:fe 0 - - 0 2 - 152 - em3 1500 192.168.168.0 192.168.168.5 7964 - - 533711 8000 - 1042855 -</link#4>waiting for your reply, regards :)
-
I have a similar problem. Though I've never been able to produce it with a manual ping.
What I see is that the gateway monitor of a local router will suddenly begin having intermittent packet loss after pfSense has be online anywhere from a few days to couple weeks. Restarting pfSense, with no action taken on the target gateway, fixes it, for awhile.
pfSense has single physical interface connected to a smart switch (Cisco SG200-8).
LAN uses the physical.
WAN uses VLAN 98 to ISP
TVLAN uses VLAN 97 to a local router (Actiontec MI424-WR) (this is the one with the issue) (average ping is about 0.4 ms)Been going on for quite some time. Posted question about it in one of these forums a few months ago.
2.1-RELEASE (i386)
built on Wed Sep 11 18:16:50 EDT 2013FreeBSD 8.3-RELEASE-p11
 -
So what is the path that pfsense takes vs the path your other machine you ping the upstream (pfsense gateway) the 2.1 and 1.254 address
I would assume they are all connected to some common switch - is it possible the switch is having issues moving traffic from pfsense to the gateway vs from this other connected device.
It just seems strange to me that ping from pfsense to X that response time would point to issue on pfsense.
pfsense puts ping on wire, there is a response.. Would pfsense having issues modify these times? Lets say the response comes in .5 seconds (500ms) how would pfsense as it moves it up the stack change that time to 10 ms?
I could see a delay in the output of the command say, but would it modify the times??
Also - your pings there in the .03 ms range to 2.1 - you sure you were not pinging yourself?? That is really FAST response even for a LAN..
-
I have a similar problem. Though I've never been able to produce it with a manual ping.
What I see is that the gateway monitor of a local router will suddenly begin having intermittent packet loss after pfSense has be online anywhere from a few days to couple weeks. Restarting pfSense, with no action taken on the target gateway, fixes it, for awhile.
[…]
2.1-RELEASE (i386)
built on Wed Sep 11 18:16:50 EDT 2013FreeBSD 8.3-RELEASE-p11
I think that you problem isn't a real problem, but virtual: when you have packet loss, your latency is almost good! in 2.1 there is a problem with fake packet loss. look this thread: http://forum.pfsense.org/index.php?topic=66328.0. If you wont to be sure that packet loss is fake, try smokeping utlity on another machine.
Also - your pings there in the .03 ms range to 2.1 - you sure you were not pinging yourself?? That is really FAST response even for a LAN..
Yes, sorry, my error with VM ::)
this is the correct pingping -S 192.168.2.10 -c10 192.168.2.1 PING 192.168.2.1 (192.168.2.1) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 192.168.2.1: icmp_req=1 ttl=64 time=0.603 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.2.1: icmp_req=2 ttl=64 time=0.636 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.2.1: icmp_req=3 ttl=64 time=0.637 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.2.1: icmp_req=4 ttl=64 time=0.645 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.2.1: icmp_req=5 ttl=64 time=0.653 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.2.1: icmp_req=6 ttl=64 time=0.617 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.2.1: icmp_req=7 ttl=64 time=0.604 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.2.1: icmp_req=8 ttl=64 time=0.633 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.2.1: icmp_req=9 ttl=64 time=0.969 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.2.1: icmp_req=10 ttl=64 time=0.602 ms --- 192.168.2.1 ping statistics --- 10 packets transmitted, 10 received, 0% packet loss, time 9001ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.602/0.659/0.969/0.110 msMy hardware configuration is very simple, that's because i think the problem is pfsense.
scheme in attachments
This isn't a simplification, but my real network (wan side) where every arrow represent a cableIt just seems strange to me that ping from pfsense to X that response time would point to issue on pfsense.
pfsense puts ping on wire, there is a response.. Would pfsense having issues modify these times? Lets say the response comes in .5 seconds (500ms) how would pfsense as it moves it up the stack change that time to 10 ms?
it's strange for mee too, but I think it's the most likely thing. Maybe pfsense increase it's X time to put ping on the wire and consequently latency increase..
-
hi to all. Today i see improvements.
This is my actual load
/0 /1 /2 /3 /4 /5 /6 /7 /8 /9 /10 Load Average Interface Traffic Peak Total em1_vlan13 in 12.636 KB/s 1.346 MB/s 946.988 MB out 9.207 KB/s 101.088 KB/s 69.776 MB em0_vlan10 in 1.307 KB/s 58.705 KB/s 21.818 MB out 7.329 KB/s 3.202 MB/s 517.675 MB lo0 in 0.065 KB/s 0.464 KB/s 47.049 KB out 0.065 KB/s 0.464 KB/s 47.049 KB em3 in 22.275 KB/s 151.768 KB/s 181.590 MB out 39.036 KB/s 1.423 MB/s 2.242 GB em2 in 3.303 KB/s 11.335 KB/s 3.329 MB out 3.437 KB/s 38.118 KB/s 4.351 MB em1 in 37.779 KB/s 1.889 MB/s 2.460 GB out 17.342 KB/s 127.957 KB/s 161.994 MB em0 in 4.159 KB/s 141.876 KB/s 34.396 MB out 6.426 KB/s 1.606 MB/s 267.269 MBi have also modified (yesterday) my sysctl and my loader.conf.local, but probably the benefits that i'm seeing are caused from the very low traffic.
/etc/systctl.conf
kern.ipc.somaxconn=1024 # (default 128) kern.ipc.maxsockbuf=16777216 net.inet.tcp.mssdflt=1460 # (default 536) net.inet.tcp.sendbuf_max=16777216 net.inet.tcp.recvbuf_max=16777216 net.inet.tcp.sendbuf_inc=262144 # (default 8192 ) net.inet.tcp.recvbuf_inc=262144 # (default 16384) net.inet.tcp.cc.algorithm=htcp # Reduce the amount of SYN/ACKs we will re-transmit to an unresponsive client. net.inet.tcp.syncache.rexmtlimit=1 # (default 3) # Lessen max segment life to conserve resources # ACK waiting time in milliseconds # (default: 30000\. RFC from 1979 recommends 120000) net.inet.tcp.msl=5000 # As of 15 Apr 2009\. Igor Sysoev says that nolocaltimewait has some buggy implementaion. # So disable it or now till get fixed net.inet.tcp.nolocaltimewait=0 # Protocol decoding in interrupt thread. # If you have NIC that automatically sets flow_id then it's better to not # use direct_force, and use advantages of multithreaded netisr(9) # If you have Yandex drives you better off with `net.isr.direct_force=1` and # `net.inet.tcp.read_locking=0` otherwise you may run into some TCP related # problems. # Note: If you have old NIC that don't set flow_ids you may need to # patch `ip_input` to manually set FLOW_ID via `nh_m2flow`. # # FreeBSD 8+ net.isr.direct=1 net.isr.direct_force=1 # Explicit Congestion Notification # (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explicit_Congestion_Notification) #net.inet.tcp.ecn.enable=1 # Flowtable - flow caching mechanism # Useful for routers net.inet.flowtable.enable=1 net.inet.flowtable.nmbflows=65535 vm.pmap.shpgperproc=2048 net.inet.tcp.recvspace=1024000 net.inet.tcp.sendspace=1024000 net.inet.ip.forwarding=1 # (default 0) net.inet.ip.fastforwarding=1 # (default 0) # General Security and DoS mitigation. net.inet.ip.check_interface=1 # verify packet arrives on correct interface (default 0) net.inet.ip.portrange.randomized=1 # randomize outgoing upper ports (default 1) net.inet.ip.process_options=0 # IP options in the incoming packets will be ignored (default 1) net.inet.ip.random_id=1 # assign a random IP_ID to each packet leaving the system (default 0) net.inet.ip.redirect=0 # do not send IP redirects (default 1) net.inet.ip.accept_sourceroute=0 # drop source routed packets since they can not be trusted (default 0) net.inet.ip.sourceroute=0 # if source routed packets are accepted the route data is ignored (default 0) net.inet.ip.stealth=1 # do not reduce the TTL by one(1) when a packets goes through the firewall (default 0) net.inet.icmp.bmcastecho=0 # do not respond to ICMP packets sent to IP broadcast addresses (default 0) net.inet.icmp.maskfake=0 # do not fake reply to ICMP Address Mask Request packets (default 0) net.inet.icmp.maskrepl=0 # replies are not sent for ICMP address mask requests (default 0) net.inet.icmp.log_redirect=0 # do not log redirected ICMP packet attempts (default 0) net.inet.icmp.drop_redirect=1 # no redirected ICMP packets (default 0) net.inet.icmp.icmplim=10 # number of ICMP/RST packets/sec to limit returned packet bursts during a DoS. (default 200) net.inet.icmp.icmplim_output=1 # show "Limiting open port RST response" messages (default 1) net.inet.tcp.drop_synfin=1 # SYN/FIN packets get dropped on initial connection (default 0) net.inet.tcp.ecn.enable=0 # explicit congestion notification (ecn) warning: some ISP routers abuse it (default 0) net.inet.tcp.fast_finwait2_recycle=1 # recycle FIN/WAIT states quickly (helps against DoS, but may cause false RST) (default 0) net.inet.tcp.icmp_may_rst=0 # icmp may not send RST to avoid spoofed icmp/udp floods (default 1) #net.inet.tcp.maxtcptw=15000 # max number of tcp time_wait states for closing connections (default 5120) net.inet.tcp.msl=3000 # 3s maximum segment life waiting for an ACK in reply to a SYN-ACK or FIN-ACK (default 30000) net.inet.tcp.path_mtu_discovery=0 # disable MTU discovery since most ICMP type 3 packets are dropped by others (default 1) net.inet.tcp.rfc3042=0 # disable limited transmit mechanism which can slow burst transmissions (default 1) net.inet.tcp.sack.enable=1 # TCP Selective Acknowledgments are needed for high throughput (default 1) net.inet.udp.blackhole=1 # drop udp packets destined for closed sockets (default 0) net.inet.tcp.blackhole=2 # drop tcp packets destined for closed ports (default 0) #net.route.netisr_maxqlen=4096 # route queue length (rtsock using "netstat -Q") (default 256) security.bsd.see_other_uids=0 # only allow users to see their own processes. root can see all (default 1)/boot/loader.conf.local
legal.intel_wpi.license_ack=1 #accetta la licenza intel legal.intel_ipw.license_ack=1 aio_load="YES" # Async IO system calls autoboot_delay="3" # reduce boot menu delay from 10 to 3 seconds. cc_htcp_load="YES" kern.ipc.nmbclusters="262144" kern.ipc.somaxconn="4096" kern.ipc.maxsockets="204800" hw.em.rxd="4096" hw.em.txd="4096" hw.em.fc_setting="0" hw.em.num_queues="4" kern.sched.slice="1" # inizio nuovo # Some useful netisr tunables. See sysctl net.isr net.isr.maxthreads=4 net.isr.defaultqlimit=10240 net.isr.maxqlimit=10240 # Bind netisr threads to CPUs net.isr.bindthreads=1 # Also for my notebook, but may be used with Opteron #device amdtemp # Same for Intel processors device coretempand this is the ping from Pfsense
PING 192.168.2.1 (192.168.2.1) from 192.168.2.5: 56 data bytes 64 bytes from 192.168.2.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=64 time=0.203 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.2.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.149 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.2.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.142 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.2.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=20.249 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.2.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=1.627 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.2.1: icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=0.177 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.2.1: icmp_seq=6 ttl=64 time=0.158 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.2.1: icmp_seq=7 ttl=64 time=0.101 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.2.1: icmp_seq=8 ttl=64 time=0.219 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.2.1: icmp_seq=9 ttl=64 time=0.149 ms --- 192.168.2.1 ping statistics --- 10 packets transmitted, 10 packets received, 0.0% packet loss round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 0.101/2.317/20.249/5.993 msPING 192.168.1.254 (192.168.1.254) from 192.168.1.130: 56 data bytes 64 bytes from 192.168.1.254: icmp_seq=0 ttl=64 time=0.858 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.1.254: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.821 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.1.254: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.686 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.1.254: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=0.805 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.1.254: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=0.672 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.1.254: icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=0.667 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.1.254: icmp_seq=6 ttl=64 time=1.909 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.1.254: icmp_seq=7 ttl=64 time=6.646 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.1.254: icmp_seq=8 ttl=64 time=0.638 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.1.254: icmp_seq=9 ttl=64 time=0.767 ms --- 192.168.1.254 ping statistics --- 10 packets transmitted, 10 packets received, 0.0% packet loss round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 0.638/1.447/6.646/1.769 msWe will inform you of what is happening with more load Monday.
-
So this is physical wires and devices involved anywhere in this setup - or is this all virtual networks and vms?
Sorry but even 2 boxes connected together with a wire.. These just seem to low.
64 bytes from 192.168.2.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=64 time=0.203 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.2.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.149 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.2.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.142 ms.15 to .2 ms is freakishly FAST.. And then bounces to 20ms ??
64 bytes from 192.168.2.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=20.249 msThis seems more realistic for normal lan pings - me pinging box on my network.
From 192.168.1.99: bytes=60 seq=0001 TTL=64 ID=54ef time=0.494ms
From 192.168.1.99: bytes=60 seq=0002 TTL=64 ID=54f0 time=0.415ms
From 192.168.1.99: bytes=60 seq=0003 TTL=64 ID=54f1 time=0.407ms
From 192.168.1.99: bytes=60 seq=0004 TTL=64 ID=54f2 time=0.404msOk low 3's – but sub .2 -- I don't think I have ever seen such speeds.
64 bytes from 192.168.2.1: icmp_seq=7 ttl=64 time=0.101 ms
You sure your not pinging your own IP address again? ;)
Here is my box pinging itself
From 192.168.1.100: bytes=60 seq=0001 TTL=128 ID=29d0 time=0.122ms
From 192.168.1.100: bytes=60 seq=0002 TTL=128 ID=29d2 time=0.159ms
From 192.168.1.100: bytes=60 seq=0003 TTL=128 ID=29d4 time=0.144ms
From 192.168.1.100: bytes=60 seq=0004 TTL=128 ID=29d6 time=0.142msNow sure I can understand those speeds pinging your own IP.
So here is question for you - are you having actual operational issues with actual applications having issues with packet loss.. Or are you just seeing weird stuff when your pinging?
-
So this is physical wires and devices involved anywhere in this setup - or is this all virtual networks and vms?
I've used VM (virtual box on windows) only for testing ping from another linux box(i hate windows ping), my pFsense configuration is hardware!
64 bytes from 192.168.2.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=64 time=0.203 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.2.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.149 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.2.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.142 ms.15 to .2 ms is freakishly FAST.. And then bounces to 20ms ??
64 bytes from 192.168.2.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=20.249 msYou finally hit the problem!! ;D How is it possible?! :o
I don't know why is so fast, but this is a production server, with good cable (cat 5e, 6) and decent switch (but not excellent).Ok low 3's – but sub .2 -- I don't think I have ever seen such speeds.
2.1 box is a zeroshell router, before putting it i haven't this low ping.
You sure your not pinging your own IP address again? ;)
I'm sure because of this:
PING 192.168.2.1 (192.168.2.1) from 192.168.2.5: 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 192.168.2.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=64 time=0.203 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.2.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.149 msand:
Interface configuration:
WAN (wan) -> em1 -> v4: 192.168.1.130/24 DMZ (lan) -> em0 -> v4: 172.16.30.5/24 WAN2 (opt1) -> em1_vlan13 -> v4: 192.168.2.5/24 WIBRI (opt2) -> em3 -> v4: 192.168.168.5/24 SEDE (opt3) -> em0_vlan10 -> v4: 192.168.132.5/24 WAN3 (opt4) -> em2 -> v4: 217.xx.xx.30/27So here is question for you - are you having actual operational issues with actual applications having issues with packet loss.. Or are you just seeing weird stuff when your pinging?
I've started to monitoring my ping because of issue with VOIP, that is more suscettibile of packet loss and high latency. I've got a lot of drop calls or very low calling quality.
Then i've PHYSICAL switch WAN3 (where the VOIP go out) from em0 (em0, em1 are on the same physical network, a dual port) to em2 (motherboard's NIC ) AND i've moved other traffic that exit from wan3 to wan1, SO this network now work good. At this point i've thinked that i've a broken or not properly working NIC, but i've tried another hardware configuration, but the issue persists. So i've tried, on my production server, to put all the wan on the NIC that i was sure working good: em3. I've created and configured 2 wan on 2 vlan + 1 wan without it: DISASTER :o ALL the wan had the same problem, even worse. I've tried also to change switch!With my actual configuration i haven't problem with VOIP, but the internet navigation is worse and slower because of this lag/packet loss.
PS. thanks for your interest :D
-
And what macs are you seeing on those IPs from arp -a on 2.5 pinging 2.1
I will do some testing at work from highend cisco switch connected to another highend cisco switch.. Its just sub <.2ms just seems like one screaming LAN or your just pinging yourself..
And your sub .2 and then out of the blue 20ms – then next ping back to sub .2, that seems just not right.
-
Those ping times look OK to me, aside from the sudden jump to 20ms.
My test pfSense box is setup behind my home pfSense box connected directly by a 0.5m cat5e cable. The 'normal' ping responce is <0.2ms. See attached RRD graph.
That is attached to some bridged ports on the pfSense box also so I would expect that to add some time.Though your ping times are still lower than mine and you are using a switch.
In your diagram above you seem to have two boxes labelled 192.168.1.254. Typo? Just indicating the subnet? My not understanding your diagram?
Steve
-
And what macs are you seeing on those IPs from arp -a on 2.5 pinging 2.1
I will do some testing at work from highend cisco switch connected to another highend cisco switch.. Its just sub <.2ms just seems like one screaming LAN or your just pinging yourself..
And your sub .2 and then out of the blue 20ms – then next ping back to sub .2, that seems just not right.
For short cable runs on gigabit, that is rather normal. I usually run ping tests after setting up structured cabling (loss packets are more indicative of issues than throughput tests that vary largely). Sub .3ms is very normal even for longer runs (>50m). The varying factor is usually the load on the end point systems.
e.g.
This is a ping test for a Gigabit connected access point that is currently actively streaming HD videos over WLAN:--- 192.168.0.11 ping statistics --- 5 packets transmitted, 5 packets received, 0.0% packet loss round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 0.463/4.956/9.644/3.571 msThis for a 10/100 connected access point that is currently inactive (no clients connected):
--- 192.168.0.10 ping statistics --- 5 packets transmitted, 5 packets received, 0.0% packet loss round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 0.257/0.275/0.327/0.026 msAnd this is a ping test for my Gigabit connected PC that's hardly doing much other than streaming a youtube video or two:
--- 192.168.0.2 ping statistics --- 5 packets transmitted, 5 packets received, 0.0% packet loss round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 0.247/0.262/0.312/0.025 ms -
Forgot to say that my boxes above are both using fxp 10/100 NICs. ;)
Steve
-
It's really normal to see <0.5ms pings on a local network run (even through dumb switches). My point being that the latencies will vary largely based on the end point devices and their load. A short spike may just indicate that the end device is under load at the time.
In this case, the devices the OP is pinging may simply be under load at the time (since they are technically routers doing their job).
-
My point being that the latencies will vary largely based on the end point devices and their load. A short spike may just indicate that the end device is under load at the time.
In this case, the devices the OP is pinging may simply be under load at the time (since they are technically routers doing their job).It might seem correct, but if it were i should saturate 100mbit or the end point devices should have 100% or something like cpu using. This is impossible also because when i have this latency from pfsense if i ping from another box the same router at the SAME TIME, i get a fast and stable ping time.
In your diagram above you seem to have two boxes labelled 192.168.1.254. Typo? Just indicating the subnet? My not understanding your diagram?
Sry, my error, em1: 192.168.1.130/24, not 192.168.1.254.
-
It might seem correct, but if it were i should saturate 100mbit or the end point devices should have 100% or something like cpu using. This is impossible also because when i have this latency from pfsense if i ping from another box the same router at the SAME TIME, i get a fast and stable ping time.
Is this machine on the same network as pfSense?
Presumably, pfSense is pinging the said router on its 'LAN' or 'DMZ' interface. Is the machine you're using also attached to the same interface or a different interface?
BTW, do you have traffic shaping or QOS enabled on pfSense or the target router(s)?
-
"It's really normal to see <0.5ms pings on a local network run"
Agreed.. .4 to .5 very common I see this all the time in the lan and expect it.. Is just .1 to .2, I don't see that – I wouldn't call our switches over worked or anything but only time I recall seeing such low numbers is pinging local..
When at work trmw going to ping around the datacenter seeing what kind of low times I can find ;)
-
Is this machine on the same network as pfSense?
Presumably, pfSense is pinging the said router on its 'LAN' or 'DMZ' interface. Is the machine you're using also attached to the same interface or a different interface?
BTW, do you have traffic shaping or QOS enabled on pfSense or the target router(s)?Yes, i've putted this machine on the same switch ( so the same router interface ) of pfSense. Yes, traffis shaping is currently enabled on pfSense, disabled on the target routers.
-
Is this machine on the same network as pfSense?
Presumably, pfSense is pinging the said router on its 'LAN' or 'DMZ' interface. Is the machine you're using also attached to the same interface or a different interface?
BTW, do you have traffic shaping or QOS enabled on pfSense or the target router(s)?Yes, i've putted this machine on the same switch ( so the same router interface ) of pfSense. Yes, traffis shaping is currently enabled on pfSense, disabled on the target routers.
Try prioritizing icmp using the floating rules and see what you get. In practical terms, it does little but if it works then you know what to do to get the best effect on your setup.
-
@johnpoz: Don't bother to do so on my account. Lol. I do see 0.2 ms roundtrip on wired connections now and then during line testing but this is with fully idle systems. I.e. Idling system ping to smart switch on the other end without and other connected devices.
Nevertheless, a lightly loaded system should still give 0.4-0.5 ms pings. -
talking about pinging say the console or mgmt switches from say another switch - neither would be very active – idle sucking juice is about all they wold be doing.. Now in a DC where the run might be 100ft, or quite possible they are next to each other in the rack but again patch panels to connect them most likely.
I wouldn't be doing it for anyone other than myself - I don't recall ever seeing those kinds of speed in any network I have worked on in 20+ years.. But then again maybe I just never pinged anything directly connected ;) Quite possible.
-
I only do that to quickly test structured runs really. It's not indicative of real world practical applications but any major issues or interference generally shows.
